National finances are little different to personal finances - add a few zeros, change some of the language.
Individuals facing increased energy costs haves choices - borrow to maintain living standards, cut back on other expenditure, or draw on savings. Those on lower incomes have more limited choices and need targeted support.
Borrowing is seductive - but it has to be repaid. Whether country or individual, it becomes increasingly expensive to borrow (higher interest rates). Ultimately the bank says no more.
IMHO borrowing money to fund a short term problem may be expedient. It is a wholly flawed solution to a long term problem.
Pre-crisis, average spend on energy was ~5% of income - 95% spent on something else. If energy costs increase 3 fold, non-energy spend would fall to 85% - an 11% reduction. The impact on to non-energy spend is arguably more important than the energy increase.
Expect parts of the economy to suffer as spending on other things is reduced. The obvious targets are the discretionary, not largely essential. Spend on hospitality, entertainment, cars, holidays, clothes, white goods etc etc will decline.
This is not good news for business owners and staff, but the current labour shortage means that the economy can "soak up" some decline in activity with more limited personal impacts.
None of the above is good - it is reality. Focussing on its "awfulness" is completely non-productive and simply promotes anxiety. Get used to it, identify workable solutions, and adapt appropriately.
|